Is the Filter Theory committing the ad hoc fallacy and is it unfalsifiable?

Can you please quote back the place where I repeated a claim of magic intent coming from electro-chemical sparks? That doesn't even sound close to anything I wrote.

Yes, I agree that living things evolved to exploit information tools. But I also think those information tools evolved.

There are many animals without a brain. They have simple neurons that transmit a sensed condition across the body to cause simple movements. I think humans evolved from animals that had similar simple nervous systems. As evolution continued, the neurons were grouped together in a central brain. The process of transmitting the signals became much more complex, with the neurons doing complex logic on the incoming signals. This eventually evolved into the human brain.

None of this in any sense implies a magic intent from the electro-chemical sparks of life.

What are you referring to when you refer to natural information tools? How do they differ from magic?

Merle,
Again let me praise you for your efforts.  I don't want to gang-up on you.  There is a little ribbing in my comments about "magic".  I use it specifically, as meaning illusion generating an observation that will led to one conclusion and hide the root cause.  The items for which you are getting flack for may seem fine when said by others steeped in the myth.  The illusion is that the cells think for themselves and that its the signal and not the the signal's content that counts.

Yes, Aplysia delivers signals that are simple, (I have already mentioned Kandel), but the chain of physical actions, cannot account for the personal context and functional logic displayed.  They are variables with a separate route of actualization in outputting instructions from the mind.  There is not a chemical formula with reference to environmental awareness and need for self-preservation.  The "magic" is claiming these are physical outputs instead of informational outputs inspiring physical responses.

In the above you say, "with the neurons doing complex logic on the incoming signals"  This is just made up and amounts to "magic".  And while logic gates are there in biology, the order and organization of the signals has no place in materiality to sense when logic is needed.

As to the tools, I have mentioned one, but the primary tool is direct detection of real-world probabilities. They are called affordances and the concept of direct perception was championed by J. J. Gibson and his wife.  The other trend, in the last twenty years is the acknowledgement of Bayesian inference in biological information processing.
https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations...erception/

 Direct perception was proposed to be innate rather than learnt. It likely evolved as a product of evolution. Direct perception allows animals to quickly and reliably respond to the threats in the environment and therefore benefits their survival. The animals that developed the ability to quickly process information from the environment were, therefore, more likely to survive.

Are you serious?

If this is true, then what does the matter in the brain do? It consumes a large portion of the body's resources. Does it even have a purpose?

Of course it has a purpose.
You conveniently forget that this question has been answered many times in the discussions of how the demonstrated-in-NDEs existence of a mobile center of human consciousness (whether you want to call it a "soul" or not) and the fact of human embodiment in the physical, imply that the brain must act as some sort of "reducing valve" or "filter" or "transceiver" allowing the spirit to interact with the physical matter of the body via the brain. I think the transceiver model is the best simple analogy to emerge so far, though it still has limitations. This embodiment function is such a complex task that it must require the spirit to very intricately interpenetrate the physical brain in order to utilize it to manifest in the physical world.

As to the tools, I have mentioned one, but the primary tool is direct detection of real-world probabilities. They are called affordances and the concept of direct perception was championed by J. J. Gibson and his wife.  The other trend, in the last twenty years is the acknowledgement of Bayesian inference in biological information processing.
https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations...erception/

I won't pretend I am able to [completely] follow the discussions about Information science you've brought up, though it is of great interest to me.

Apologies but I can't recall if you've expressed your thoughts on one of the latest IIT papers:

Only what exists can cause: An intrinsic view of free will

(I feel like we started a discussion but it may have gotten passed over in some "hot" thread at the time?)

This might require a new thread, but this IMO - as per my limited understanding - touches on this question of physical vs mental?

The processes in a smartphone are physical processes and can be physically described.  Nobody can describe how unconscious matter can produce consciousness.  Your comparisons are always ill thought out!

Uh, when one uses a comparison between A and B, that does not mean he thinks everything about A applies to B.

Do you agree that the fact that raw materials are unable to do what smartphones do is not a valid reason for believing that smartphones do not exist?

Then you must agree that the arguments of the form "atoms cannot do A; therefore combinations of those atoms cannot do A" is not always valid. But Skiborg used that logic. It is faulty logic. That was my point.

You say "Nobody can describe how unconscious matter can produce consciousness". Of course not. But there was a time when nobody could describe how unconscious matter could make smartphones. If nobody can describe it yet, that does not make it impossible.

Yes, apparently, but do you expect me to know what that is, beyond speculation? All everyone has is speculation, and I am no different... indeed, for anyone to claim that they actually know for certain, is arrogance.

And Materialists / Physicalists have a strong amount of arrogance in claiming that they know what the matter of the brain does or what its purpose is.

You write this in response to, "What does the matter in the brain do? It consumes a large portion of the body's resources. Does it even have a purpose?"

Really? Are you going to write off the entire field of neuroscience and the medical discipline of neurology as mere speculation? There is a vast amount of research in this field. It is not simply speculation.

What is my speculation? That the matter of the brain somehow acts to filter or limit the scope of consciousness and what it is capable of.

That's it? You deny that the brain observes inputs or sends signals to the body. And when I ask you what it does, we find all it does is somehow limit consciousness?

Why do we have optic nerves, if the brain is not reading inputs from the eye through that nerve?

If one had a brainectomy, would his consciousness become unlimited?

Does this mean that all animals have souls, and all the brains of all the animals are only there to limit the consciousness of those souls?

How is it that those animals with smaller, less complex brains apparently do a much better job of limiting consciousness?

It processes dead, meaningless information - mere electrical nonsense - that is, if it is nothing more than physics.  However, there is this thing called consciousness that you seem to have trouble explaining. 

So the information from the optic nerve is meaningless--mere electrical noise?

I disagree. The information we get from our eyes through the optic nerves is very meaningful.

In all your "arguments" you willfully conflate consciousness with thought.

Wrong.

Can you show one place where I actually did that?

What you have consistently failed to do is explain how consciousness can be produced by mere atoms.

There are 8 billion people who have all failed to explain how consciousness can be produced. I am only one of 8 billion people who cannot do that. Nobody can do that. I never said I could.

I'm not making this up, this is something which you very clearly stated, consistent with my previous comment.

Huh? Please show me where I said it was magic?

You quoted something where I claimed it was something other than magic as proof that I say it was magic!

Oh for crying out loud!

Physics is entirely consistent with the view that consciousness is not generated by any source, but rather is a fundamental aspect of reality.

Wait, what? Now you say that there may be something fundamental about reality that makes things become conscious?

Over and over I have said that there may be something that works with the brain to make consciousness. Yes, there may be something fundamental about reality to make consciousness be real in our brains. Now you agree with me that there may be some fundamental aspect of reality that works with the brain to produce consciousness?

the fact that consciousness is consistent with the laws of physics, it doesn't imply that the dependence model is true.

Of course not. That is why I never would make this argument.

Go to https://mindsetfree.blog/if-only-souls-had-a-brain/ if you want to see that arguments I actually make for why our conscious self is unlikely to continue after the brain is gone.

In the above you say, "with the neurons doing complex logic on the incoming signals"  This is just made up and amounts to "magic".  And while logic gates are there in biology, the order and organization of the signals has no place in materiality to sense when logic is needed.
https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations...erception/

By "logic", I do not mean that the neurons do conscious human logic. Rather they do things analogous to and-gates and or-gates, in which they can respond to the strength of multiple signals to drive the output.

Of course it has a purpose.

Yes. You and I agree that the brain has a purpose.

I was responding to a person who seemed to be saying the brain does not read inputs from the body and does not send signals to the body. Thus, my question about what that person thought the brain actually did was appropriate.

the brain must act as some sort of "reducing valve" or "filter" or "transceiver" allowing the spirit to interact with the physical matter of the body via the brain.

Wouldn't it be great if we ever got back to discussing the filter theory? That is what I thought I was here for. But people started insisting that we talk about consciousness, and then insisted that we talk about whether brains can even have thoughts about things, and this thread got way off the rails. How about we get back to the filter theory?

Again, I explain my view of why the filter theory is inadequate at https://mindsetfree.blog/if-only-souls-had-a-brain/ . Where do you disagree with what I write there?

it's hard not to think the idea of non-conscious constituents producing consciousness as magic.

If those atoms do it by physical laws that are not currently known to us, that would not be magic.

When I say I think the brain produces consciousness (perhaps in conjunction with something unknown to us) I am emphatic that I think this would happen physically. And if it happens through physics, then, by definition, that is not magic.

You say it is not possible for this to happen physically. How do you know that? Do you know all the laws of physics that will ever be discovered?

Again, I think if we knew a complete and final physics, we would be able to understand how physical laws make consciousness. Of course, I might be mistaken. It is possible physical laws could never make consciousness. But being mistaken is not the same thing as saying it happens by magic.

For example, if I said I can do 50 pushups, and it turns out I cannot physically do that, that does not mean I am claiming magical powers to do 50 pushups. It just means I was mistaken (or perhaps lying).

Likewise, when I say I think a complete understanding of physics would include an explanation of the physical basis for consciousness, and it turns out it cannot, that does not prove I believe in magic. It just means I was mistaken.

And again, my money is on science, that there is a scientific explanation for consciousness we do not yet understand. By definition, that means my money is on it not being magic.

I can cut and paste this a thousand times if you want: My money is on it being physical, not magic.  My money is on it being physical, not magic. Should I copy that ten thousand times for your benefit? A million times? I have cut and paste. Please let me know how many times you need me to repeat this for your benefit.